Thursday, March 28, 2013

ATTENTION: The following are the North and South drop off points for
books for the NV-CURE High Desert State Prison (HDSP) soft cover book
donation drive. NORTH: Gale, Reno, NV, telephone 775.335.7773 (9:00 AM until 4:00 PM Only - Weekdays). SOUTH: Kim, 702-378.1217, call and arrange for drop off or pick up. Alternatively, drop off at NV-CURE Office, 540 E. St. Louis Ave., Las Vegas, NV (9:00 AM until 4:00 PM ONLY - Weekdays)
We still have not obtained approval from the NDOC for the book
donations. However, if you recall, it is a long process. We look to
have approval in the very near future.
PLEASE - get the books together and get them dropped off. We are
counting on you all to gather at least 1,000 books. GET BUSY. Thanks
for the help. The guys inside will appreciate it. Very Best to All

Saturday, March 23, 2013

As
a long time supporter of civil rights and liberties, I am bewildered
and angered by the ACLU’s support (under the heading “equality”!) for
AB 74, which would establish fees and registration of documents preparers, who are the often the only access to the legal system for poor communities in Nevada. How is this equality? Why would the ACLU support such a bill? While attorneys in Nevada are not required to carry malpractice insurance; however, AB 74, if passed as written, will require paralegals to carry a $50,000. 00 bond. As stated in the bill, the bond is to cover any misconduct of the paralegal. If attorneys are not required to carry malpractice insurance, why are they not required to carry at least a $150,000.00 bond? How is the client protected from attorney misconduct when they do not follow the Rules of Professional Conduct?
There is more: registration fees and fees for FBI background check and
fingerprinting and --possibly the most absurd and egregious portion -- a
provision prohibiting ex-felons from preparing documents. How does that
promote equality? Why are attorneys not required to post notice of their fees for potential clients? And provide the notice in English and any other language that are native to the majority of the attorney’s clients? Imagine what would happen if attorneys had to post their fees? We would finally see accountability in the legal profession, or it would be a start anyway, some semblance of social responsibility on the part
of Nevada’s legal community. Instead, the ACLU goes after paralegals? I almost can’t believe I am typing these words. If the ACLU was worried about equality, it would propose and support legislation to require increased pro bono hours by attorneys, AND not give attorneys an pass by paying a few hundred dollars. Poor people do not trust the legal community because the legal community is not trustworthy. This is not about paralegals. This is about attorneys taking people’s money and leaving them high and dry without legal help. These lawyers – and yes, there are many in Nevada – are called dump trucks. Low income communities need paralegals. We can’t afford attorneys’ outrageous fees. Additionally, how many attorneys in Nevada have EVER
done a pro bono case for a prisoner? Prisoners in Nevada are going blind
from denial of basic medical care, denied their basic rights in the
form of hearing aids and other assistive devices, suffering physical and
sexual abuse , retaliation for use of the grievance process and other
violations of their constitutional rights. Nevada attorneys, with a VERY
few exceptions do not assist prisoners. Now the ACLU would like to take
away the paralegals who do help them? Under the heading “equality”?
Really? Please reconsider your support for AB 74. It is bad for poor people and anyone who has been and continues to be denied access to the court system. N. Smith

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Proposed Amendments to AB 65Contact Information: John Witherow, President NV Cure231.313.0059 or Nevadacure@gmail.com

Propose to Amend Bill as follows:Amend the bill by amending Section 2, page 3 by deleting the words grant, deny,continue in line 7 and the words or to establish or modify the terms of the parole of a prisoner in lines 8 and 9

(c) Meetings of the State Board of Parole Commissioners7 when acting to grant, deny, continue or revoke the parole of a8 prisoner or to establish or modify the terms of the parole of a9 prisoner.

Purpose of amendment: To bring that section into compliance with current NRS

NRS 213.1214 Evaluation of prisoners by panel before grant or continuation ofparole; panel to adopt standards of assessment; immunity; regulations; duties ofpanel; conduct of meetings of panel.10. Meetings of a panel pursuant to this section must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 241 of NRS.

NRS 213.131 Consideration for parole: Duties of Department of Corrections;use of photographs related to offense during meeting of the State Board of ParoleCommissioners; conduct of meeting; notice of meeting to victim; prisoner’s rights;notice to prisoner of decision of Board3.
Meetings to consider prisoners for parole may be held semiannually or
more often, on such dates as may be fixed by the Board. All meetings are
quasi-judicial and must be open to the public. No rights other than
those conferred pursuant to this section or pursuant to specific statute
concerning meetings to consider prisoners for parole are available to
any person with respect to such meetings.

Explanation:

NV-Cure
agrees with and requests that you amend Section 2(d) as requested by
Special Deputy Attorney General Brett Kandt and George Taylor (Amendment
#1)

NV-CURE adamantly opposes the inclusion of Section 2(c) exempting the Boardof
Parole Commissioners when acting to grant, deny, continue or revoke
parole of a prisoner or to establish or modify the terms of parole of a
prisoner. The Parole Board ONLY ACTS IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY when
revoking a parole of aprisoner (Prisoners are provided minimum
required due process procedural protections in a parole REVOCATION
hearings) and those hearings, which are open to the public, may be
exempted from all OML requirements.

However, the Parole Board is
NOT ACTING in a quasi-judicial capacity when acting to grant, deny,
continue parole or when acting to establish or modify the terms of a
parole and those procedures are currently under the OML as evidenced in NRS 213.1214 and NRS 213.131.

Without changes to the provisions of Section 2(c) reflecting the position of NV-CURE and the elimination of Section 2(d), in our opinion the bill needs to die incommittee as those sections are not in compliance with the current NRS.

Search This Blog

How you can help

Plz Donate via Paypal to Nevada-Cure!

Please help Nevada Cure!

We need funds to respond to the many letters with serious complaints and questions about the Nevada prison system. We have made impact by tackling problems in the prison system in a systematic way, with a team of dedicated volunteers, who meet every month.

Disclaimer:

*** Not all content on this website has been verified to be true. Any parties mentioned are innocent of any accusations or allegations made against them until proven guilty in a court of law. Nevada Cure is not liable for any false or erroneous information submitted for publication.

The views expressed on this blog are not necessarily those of Nevada Cure. ***